How to Process Infrared Photographs

As the number of photos taken each year continues to increase at a nearly exponential rate, infrared photography remains a relatively small niche in the photography world, one that allows us to see and capture the world in a unique manner. Because of my infrared articles and photos, I often receive emails from others struggling to achieve good IR processing results, sometimes even from our illustrious leader. ;) Recently, I received a spate of questions regarding my technique and seeking assistance. I thought that sharing a detailed example of my workflow might be helpful for those of you who have an interest in this style of photography and are looking for some tips and pointers.

Gettysburg – St. Barbara: Infrared and Visible Light

1) Factors Impacting Infrared Images

Two of the main questions I receive are, “What is wrong with my IR image?” and “Why don’t my IR photos look anything like your photos?” Occasionally, people will email their photos and ask me to help determine why their results didn’t turn out as they had hoped they would. Providing an accurate answer can be often be tricky, since a variety of factors can impact the results:

The amount of IR light

The camera’s sensor

The specific lens

The wavelength of the IR filter

The manufacturer of the IR filter

Whether you shoot RAW or JPEG

How the camera processes RAW or JPEG files

The white balance used at the outset of the IR workflow

The steps taken in the IR workflow

Updated: For those of you using an IR filter on your lens, the type and strength of the IR cut filter, which blocks most IR light from reaching the sensor, will influence the overall exposure time

The steps taken in the IR workflow

Changing any variable will likely change the results. Changing lenses can often require a modification to your white balance and other exposure settings. There are no rigid standards for IR filters, so a 720nm filter from one manufacturer may produce slightly different results than one from another manufacturer, even with the other factors remaining the same. Traditional camera sensors are sensitive to IR light, but not by design. I think of it as an added benefit of digital cameras, and hope that as camera sensors evolve, they continue to be capable of capturing IR light. Unfortunately, camera manufacturers do not share any IR-related lens data with IR enthusiasts. I have called some of the lens manufacturers in the past to inquire about the IR performance of their lenses, but never found anyone who could answer my questions. I wish camera manufacturers would publish such data. IR photography, however, does not seem to be a priority for them.

Thus, if you want to understand whether a specific camera lens will work well for IR, you need to check the websites of the IR conversion companies or general photography websites that also maintain such information. A while back, Nasim began to list the suitability of each lens for IR purposes, so you can always check our site if you want to know if a given lens will perform well. You can also reach out to other IR photographers who post their work on flickr or 500px and inquire about their experience with a particular lens. Some lenses may work wonderfully in visible light, but be terrible for IR use, the main reason being hot spots (a not-so-subtle bright spot in the center of the image).

2) Shooting

As I have explained in other articles, I use a Nikon D7100, which as been converted by Kolari Vision, a 720nm IR filter, and a Nikon 16-85mm lens. I occasionally use other lenses, but the 16-85mm provides a perfect focal length range for just about any IR opportunity and handles IR light exceptionally well. I shoot RAW, using a custom white balance. For most scenes, I rely on Matrix metering. But because I pull my images into Lightroom, the custom white balance does not really serve a function apart from providing a more pleasing cocoa/beige and white IR image on the back of my D7100’s LCD, rather than the usual red/pink IR colors.

Infrared Angel – Camera LCD

As with my D810, I primarily shoot in Manual Mode, let the ISO float, and keep the LCD display on RGB Highlights mode. F/5.6 and F/8 are my most used apertures. Since most of the IR photography takes place on sunny days, I can usually shoot at shutter speeds more than sufficient for crisp images and use low ISO values. My D7100 does an excellent job of metering IR scenes. Occasionally, a specific scene can confuse the camera’s metering system. Under such circumstances, I will make minor adjustments via the Exposure Compensation control – normally a +/-3 or 7. I almost always carry a gray card with me so I can get a white balance reference.

Once you have experimented with IR photography for a while, you will find that you can easily spot conditions conducive to good IR photography. You also become adept at imagining how well what you see on the back of your camera’s LCD will translate into a finished IR photo. I wish I could explain in words how to acquire such skills, but alas, it is simply something that you learn from experience. The presence of clouds is an important component for IR landscapes, since they add drama and character to the skies. And normal vegetation, which may look rather bland and boring in the middle of a hot summer day, when the sun is directly overhead and visible light photography is nearly impossible, lights up using an infrared-enabled camera, appearing bright white or slightly yellow. Depending on the subject, colors will often appear very different than their visible counterparts. Certain types of dark clothing can appear to be white or light blue based on the material.

2) Software Used

I use the software products below in my IR workflow. Photoshop’s Channel Mixer makes it a must-have for IR processing. I understand that Gimp also features a Channel Mixer functionality so this may be an option for those of you who don’t wish to purchase or subscribe to Photoshop. I have never tried it, but I understand it is useful. Many IR aficionados would love to see Adobe add a Channel Mixer capability to Lightroom. But for the lack of the Channel Mixer, all IR processing could potentially be done within Lightroom (Adobe?). Some people also claim that they have had some success making Hue Adjustments in CaptureNX, Photoshops Elements, or Nik Viveza can achieve similar results, but note that these other techniques don’t offer as much flexibility as Photoshop’s Channel Mixer.

Lightroom

Photoshop CS6

Silver EFEX Plugin for Photoshop (structure or clarity)

Topaz DeNoise

Topaz InFocus (sharpening)

I have used a Adobe Custom DNG Profile Tool. I processed two photos, one using the custom DNG profile for my infrared D7100 and the other using the technique below. I did not notice any appreciable differences between the final photos. Then again, I only tried it on a few different IR photos. Now that I have created it, I can easily check its results against my current technique. If you wish to experiment with custom DNG profiles, you can view an instruction video here: How To Create A Customer DNG Profile. The custom DNG profile does have one main advantage – it allows you to move the white balance sliders of Temperature and Tint past the current limitations of 2000 and 150 respectively, and thus provide additional latitude in processing IR photos. I have to experiment more with this feature to determine how and under what conditions it may be useful.

3) IR Workflow

3.1) Import Into Lightroom

I import my DNG or NEF files into Lightroom 6 using a custom preset. This gets me within the “ballpark” relative to the proper white balance and exposure settings. Don’t be disappointed if the settings I list do not work as well for your specific IR camera configuration. You need to experiment and discover what works best for your images based on your specific equipment. Under the Camera Calibration section of Lightroom, I use “Camera Portrait,” since I don’t want Lightroom making any significant changes to the photo, as I would rather these be made in Photoshop, after I have performed the color swapping operation, and seen the resultant image.

IR Preset Lightroom

The photo now looks like the one below. I will then check the white balance of a picture that I took with my gray card, and determine what, if any, adjustments I wish to make. They are often minimal. Getting the white balance correct is critical, and is usually where people go wrong. It can be tricky without some form of standard or guide. Changes in white balance settings don’t appear to be very different when you view the pinkish/red image in Lightroom or Camera Raw. But such differences can significantly alter the results once you perform the Channel Mixer swapping routine described below. If you get the white balance wrong, you will likely see it in the white/yellow portions of your photos, as they may look rather dull.

RAW File In Lightroom

The photo looks pretty pink and bland, which is characteristic of most IR photos prior to processing.

3.2) Photoshop Processing

I then bring the image into Photoshop, where I use an Action to accomplish the next set of tasks. I highly recommend that you create actions for IR processing. This will save you work and enable you to obtain consistent results.

3.2.1) Adjust The Channel Mixer

Many tutorials suggest changing the Channel Mixer settings to the following:

These settings will create a photo that looks something like the one below. Our bland pink image now shows what is referred to as “false color.”

Traditional Red & Blue Channel Swap

I experimented with the Channel Mixer settings and found the settings below to be better, at least to my eye. Channel Mixer Settings can be tricky to experiment with. Slight changes can have huge impacts. And each Channel has three settings, all of which interact with the settings from the other Channels. As you experiment, it is helpful to make minor adjustments and save those you like as Channel Mixer Presets. This will help you compare settings and allow you to reference them when creating an IR Action.

These settings will result in a photo that looks something like the one below:

NIKON D7100 @ 16mm, ISO 100, 1/125, f/8.0

3.2.2) Add HUE/SATURATION Layer

I like a slightly different blue hue, so I make an adjustment in the Hue/Saturation Slider. This is purely a matter of taste. I encourage you to play with the Hue/Adjustment settings to determine if you find one or more settings that are aesthetically pleasing to you.

Blue Hue Saturation Adjustment

This results in the photo below. Looking better, but still pretty bland.

Change Blue Hue

3.2.3) Add Curves Layer

The AUTO function in the Curves dialog generally works very well with IR photos. After applying an Auto Curves layer, our image is starting to look half-decent:

Adjust Contrast

3.2.4) Silver EFEX

Silver EFEX, from Nik (now owned by Google), is a handy plugin for processing and fine tuning black and white images. For IR, I use it primarily to add structure (or clarity in the Photoshop world) and make some minor modifications to the false colors. I created an Action that enables me to get consistent results with little effort.

Silver EFEX IR Structure

I then change the Blend Mode of Silver EFEX layer to Luminosity. This particular technique works better for some photos than others. Sometimes I will adjust the opacity of the layer depending on the specific photo and how well I believe the additional structure adds or detracts from the image. Not every IR photo looks good using false colors. In those cases, I may simply stop at this juncture and use the black and white version of the photo. I may add a touch of sepia tone for character, as shown in this photo of General Gouverneur Warren standing on Little Round Top, at the Gettysburg Battlefield.

General Gouverneur Warren – Little Round Top, Gettysburg Battlefied

After changing the Silver EFEX layer Blend Mode to Luminosity, we get this:

Silver EFEX – Change Luminosity

3.2.5) Topaz DeNoise and InFocus Sharpening

Last, but not least, I have an action to apply a denoise layer and then sharpen the final picture. Despite their low price, I find that Topaz’s utilities to do an excellent job. And here again, is the final result:

Topaz DeNoise and InFocus Sharpening

Here’s a 1/9th center crop:

Center Crop of Final Image

4) Summary

In a world inundated by photos, IR photography still offers photographers the opportunity to capture something that stands out from the crowd. Achieving consistent IR results can be tricky at times, however, as demonstrated by some of the emails I receive. With some patience and persistence, you may find that you are able to process IR photos in the same amount of time as their visible light counterparts.

Update: Since I wrote this article and others related to infrared photography, many people have emailed me with questions related to IR and advice regarding IR conversion services. Over the last few years, I have recommended Kolari Vision. Kolari Vision has converted four DSLRs for me. I have been very impressed with the quality of the service, turnaround time, value, and performance of the IR converted DSLRs. Ilija Melentijevic, Kolari Vision’s founder, has been especially patient and helpful in explaining the technical and nuanced aspects of converting and using digital cameras for infrared photography. Kolari Vision offers a full range of infrared, ultraviolet, and other specialized digital camera solutions and related filters.

Following are some examples of the types of effects you can achieve with IR processing:

Related articles:

About Bob Vishneski

Bob Vishneski works in the media software industry and is an avid photographer. He has held management and technical positions during his career in such areas as computer manufacturing, imaging software and document management systems, enterprise systems development, and consulting. Bob rediscovered his love for photography in 2007 as the digital photography movement began to take off. He specializes in infrared photography. When he is not focusing on the challenges of the software development industry, he spends time traveling with his wife, Tanya, and family, golfing, and honing his photography and Photoshop skills. Bob and his family reside in the Pittsburgh area. His work can be found at 500px.

Reader Interactions

Comments

1) shawn

July 19, 2015 at 2:31 pm

Super, super useful post. Thank you so much.

I have a converted D600 and I have my own routine, but I really appreciate you opening my eyes to yours. I’m going to steal some bits of it!

Great stuff, Bob! I really appreciate that your share your workflow with us. I use an old (but still quite good) D80 converted to IR and 16-85, but I also love to use Nikkor 10-24mm. So far I have been processing pictures only in LR, using split-toning quite i bit(see: , but now I am going to try your photoshop workflow as well. Thanks!

Thx so much. I converted a DX Nikon to IR in December; have read everything I can find on the internet and some books am still not well informed. Printing this out on my new color laser for careful study.

A well written article for those exploring this medium. It is interesting, and can be quite beautiful with well chosen and composed subjects, but will probably go the way of other fads as it is progressively done to death by increasing numbers of imitators. Rather like the lurid HDR renderings of old automobiles, derelict factories and cartoonish landscapes – now widely considered banal and clichéd. So often these techniques are used as a ‘creative fig leaf’ to cover up the fact that the underlying image content is utterly mundane.

Betty, IR photography has been around since the 30s and increased in importance during WWII, when we realized IR film could tell the difference between a real forest and an ammunition factory that was painted green. The issue is that we do not “see” the underlying image at all – at least not in the wavelength IR captures and how IR interprets the subject. That is what makes it unique. Regarding HDR, don’t tell that to Trey Ratcliff, who seems to be living the good life, having built up an entire photography business and nearly cult-like following based on his HDR photos and techniques. I suspect IR will continue to represent a relatively minor niche in the photography world, but it will continue to have a small, but dedicated group of followers, and be here long after we are gone. Bob

Yes Bob, I know all that, I had a small flirtation with IR photography in the days of film and as I said, the results can be quite beautiful. The fact that a talented photographer like Trey has made a great success of HDR does not change the fact that HDR has spawned a horde of followers who think that a processing technique is a substitute for content. And yes, when all the ballyhoo blows over, both techniques will continue on quietly serving a small group of dedicated followers long after we are done and dusted.

HDr processing has been around as long if not longer than ir. As sensors progress it is used less and less ..my d800 and it’s 14ev sensor enables be to capture all the light needed in most situations. In regards to your attitude towards others and their arts …failed artists make even worse critics. Bob thanks for the tips

Very nice article Bob, thanks! I converted my old Nikon D5100 to 720nm some months ago: the way you process the colors Channel Mixer looks better to me too, either to use a pure B&W or false color approach.

All the photos except for the “Lobster & Crab” sign one (via my Leica M3) were taken in Infrared. Most were taken with a converted Canon SX40HS. I expect one can pick out those taken with my Leica M8 using IR filters. These are pretty much the first IR shots I’ve taken — well, those taken in Québec City in May 2015 are. The others were taken in June 2015 on Monhegan, Maine (as was the M3 B&W shot,, but last June; the island doesn’t change a bunch, except for the people.) It’s a challenge to be a street photographer in Maine. Monhegan Island only has one street. On the other hand, it IS ‘another world’ — a lovely time machine. I don’t expect there are a bunch of IR street photographers, but it seems a pretty good fit for me.

Methinks not. As there are only 45 or so full-time residents on Monhegan Island, the community tends to use the church for just about any indoor sitting-down event. Used to be, I believe, a clergy person might take the ferry across (12 miles or so) on a clear Sunday for a service, but I’ve never seen one. They do open the church daily for people to practice music. About the stairs: I’ve, now, twice gone to Montmorency Falls, which is not far from Québec City. One takes am aereal car across the gorge then climbs up to the bridge suspending it. Argh. THIS time we went DOWN the staircase in a brisk wet wind. I’m not built for such joys. And the wind sprayed the falls across with fury. Rather like being inside one’s personal hurricane.

Thanks so much, Bob! Much appreciated information, well laid out and thought through….

Betty, most of your post was an unnecessary downer. Every art medium is subject to being done to death by mediocre practitioners– the more accessible it is to the masses, the greater the volume of mediocrity. Using technique to cover lack of vision is not news, either. The best defense is not a dismissal of the art form, but to be the exception and go out and do it well. Bob helps greatly by giving a free lesson in technique; until that is mastered, real art can only be accidental.

Since infrared photography is over a hundred years old, it really doesn’t qualify as a fad.

My post was not a downer on anything other than, as you point out, the fact that the more accessible a technique (or new technology) is to the masses the greater the volume of mediocrity that results. Just take a look at Facebook or Flickr et al. The art form is just fine, it’s the spawning of mediocrity that I have a ‘downer’ on.

Also, I didn’t mean to imply that infra red photography was a fad, I meant to say that it is rapidly becoming one.

Bob’s lesson, as I commented, is well written and helpful to those who are interested in exploring IR further and I completely agree with you that real art can only reliably come after technique has been mastered. I don’t think we have much to disagree on here.

Thank you Bob for an interesting and comprehensive article. I don’t have an IR converted camera, but do attempt, with varying success, IR using a Hoya and Tiffin R72 filter. I have noticed that when fitted to my Nikon D800E the average time at f8 to capture a suitable detailed image can be as long as 30-40 seconds. Whereas on my Fuji X-T1 it’s more like 10-15 seconds. Is this because the Fuji sensor is more sensitive to IR than the D800E? I know this is not about converted cameras, but would like to know more about this alternative method of capturing IR.

If you have time could you please take a look at a recent flickr image I took using my Fuji X-T1 + 18mm and Hoya filter. I would be interested to hear your opinion please. www.flickr.com/photo…ed-public/

Richard, The IR cut filter is either stronger in the D800 or the Fuji’s sensor is more sensitive to IR light. Or both. That is a good point that I did not address. I will append the article when I have a chance later today. Nice moody cemetery picture in IR. Did you put a vignette around the outside of the frame? Bob

Bob, I’ll add my accolades to those above and say thank you for sharing the details of the post work. When I present on IR photography the emphasis is on time needed for post processing workup. I converted my D200 to IR with a 590nm filter and was so pleased with what I was getting during mid-day shoots that I converted a D800 to 820nm IR camera. Your comments on setting the correct WB are spot on and I hope the folks trying this take that to heart. There are so may different ways to adjust our IR images these days with the addition of the Nik filters such as Color Efex pro 4.0 and Silver Efex that I learn from each of these posts. Thanks for the tip on using Silver Efex and the luminosity blending mode. It makes perfect sense once I read it but would have never thought to try it without your posting!

This is some of what I’ve been shooting since we are sharing sites. I’m reworking some IR images incorporating some of your workflow and like what I’m seeing. Thanks again for the detailed post!www.flickr.com/photo…4484981989

A very useful article, Bob with a couple of things I haven’t thought of.

I have sometimes played around with the channel mixer but hadn’t thought to try such radical settings. I also hadn’t thought to use Silver Efex Pro in that way although I have sometimes used black and white adjustment layers on overlay.

Does the initial white balance really make a difference? I guess I’ll have to test it out to see. I use a DNG profile as a preset when importing to Lightroom (from a RAW file of course) and adjust the white balance after that. Since I have plenty of leeway I assume it makes no difference what I have the white balance set to in camera.

My approach tends to be very variable depending on the image. I often optimise individual channels in Lightroom, make extensive use of hue/saturation and sometimes selective colour, and sometimes combine different versions with masks.

Murray, Thanks. Yes – the white balance used at the outset of the workflow matters quite a bit. Small changes in Temperature or Tint can significantly change the way false colors are rendered, especially for IR filters such as the 590nm or 665nm, which allow more visible light to be captured. Even with the 720nm IR filter, tweaks of +/- 10 for either Temperature or Tint can be seen after the Channel Swapping operation. Wow! Those are some colorful IR photos. What filter? 590nm? 665nm? Bob

Hello Bob, thanks for your article. I’m curious, is there an advantage to converting a camera to IR versus putting an IR filter over the lens? As for WB, how do you do that on a camera that is no longer receiving standard visible light wavelengths? I’ll assume I may have missed some articles here on this. If so any links would be appreciated.

On a side note, is that chromatic aberration I’m seeing in some of the shots, like the one of the deer in the cemetery? If so, I didn’t think that phenomenon would be visible in the IR realm. If it is CA, can it be adjusted the same way in a program like LR as when working with standard visible light?

Spy, An unmodifed camera has an IR cut filter, which filters out most of the IR light. When you put an IR filter on a lens, you only let IR light above that wavelength into the sensor. The combination of one letting in what the other is blocking raises the amount exposure time – normally between 15-60+ seconds depending on the sensor, the IR cut filter, and the IR filter on your lens. What you see on the photo of the deer may be a bit of halo effects from my adjustments. The 720nm filter does let in a bit of visible light, so it is possible to see a bit of chromatic aberration in theory, but I suspect it is negligible. Bob

Informative article, much appreciated. It’s a jump point for budding IR photographers. I’m only beginning to experiment with IR due to its potential for what I’m doing right now and found it helpful. Thanks!

Thank you for the great info on infrared! I shot with Infrared film many years ago and I’m getting back into it to help set us apart (once again) from all the other photographers (weddings in particular) out there, plus I personally love the look.

I’m having my “retired” 5D converted to Super Color Infrared by LifePixel right now and I’m curious about your opinion on the Canon 28mm 1.8 lens. I’ve found a used one in nice condition and since the camera isn’t back yet I’m not sure what to use on it right away. I’ve got the impression that L lenses (zooms in particular) aren’t going to do the job “hot spot” wise. Not sure if 28mm is wide enough and I do own a 15mm 2.8 Canon Fisheye that I’m considering using also. Thank you for any input you may have.

I shot my first IR pics over the weekend with my D800, and then tried to process in LR, and found it impossible. The WB latitude is simply not wide enough, and I used your parameters to the letter. Of course I tweaked those in an attempt to find something that worked as it should.

After many frustrations, I downloaded Capture NX D and viola! Much much better, in fact, perfect. Excepting for the fact that it will not export the processed RAW file for channel switching in Photoshop. It can only export a TIFF or Jpeg. After searching about on the ‘net, I found that Capture NX2 is the only software for IR photography that can handle all the elements required to create good IR imagery with Nikon cameras. It’s cheap enough so there’s no problem there. For Canon, I believe it’s something called Photo Professional.

Did you use an external filter or did you have your D800 converted for IR? What filter did you use? I have used Lightroom for all my IR photography and not had any issues. I tried the custom camera profile in Lightroom and made a few adjustments (relative to the red channel in the Curves layer) to the workflow in the article. You can always use dropbox to send me a copy of the raw file and I can see what I can do with it.

I used the Hoya R72, and made sure to shut off the viewfinder of course. After LR failed I did some extensive searching and discovered that this is a common situation for Nikon IR photographers. I landed on Lifepixel where they advise using NX2 in their instructional videos. Before committing to it I wanted to see if NX D worked and as stated earlier the WB latitude is wide enough to do a great job. Looks like I’ll buy NX2 for IR – it’s less than $200. Thanks for the offer of dropboxing the file but I like to sort these things myself as it’s not a problem I can’t get around.

Stephen, I have yet to have any issues with Lightroom/Photoshop after using this technique (approximate) on 3 IR cameras, converted from 2 different conversion companies (Kolari Vision & Lightpixel) using 3 different filters. There should be no reason I can think of that Lightroom will not work for you. If you use a custom Adobe camera profile, you will gain back the latitude you lost, which is exactly what my link in the article shows. But regardless of whether you use the custom camera profile or not, you should be able to process your photo with setting between 2000 and 72-to-118 in Photoshop, and swapping the channels in Photoshop. I am sure you will be happy with the NX software, but I suspect you might have saved yourself the $200, if you already have Lightroom/Photoshop. Bob

I don’t know what I can tell you, where IR and WB balance is concerned, LR doesn’t cut it for my D800 files and apparently, if Lifepixel and others are to be believed, it doesn’t for many others either.

Moving along, I’ve since tried NX D, which, as you probably know, is free, and for IR WB processing it does the same job as NX 2 so that’s $200 saved. I’m thoroughly enjoying the surreal look I’m getting from my IR photography right now, so much so that I’m looking into getting a conversion rather than using a filter. Much faster all round. Thanks for a great article.

Stephen, Unfortunately, you are getting some bum advice. Every single IR photo I have processed (a few thousand), since 2007, has been with Lightroom & Photoshop. Lightroom was brand new at that time – version 1.0. Two of my cameras were converted by Lifepixel, two by Kolari Vision. Similar technique was used for all photos from all cameras. I can tell you that there was a 46 point difference between the Lifepixel and Kolari vision 720nm filters, just to show you how different settings may need to be adjusted from one camera conversion company/filter to another. You may need to experiment with Channel Mixer settings that work with your IR filter (as the article suggests), but I can assure you that Lightroom can indeed to a good job of processing your picture to the point where you bring it into Photoshop. Although this photo is listed as March 2012, it was taken in the summer of 2007:www.flickr.com/photo…6950566247 Good luck with NX D. Send me a link to your photo page. Bob

Experience can be irrelevant if it follows on from the wrong advice or if the correct advice is ignored.

Bob has given you all the correct information for using Lightroom with IR files.

It does say in Life Pixel on their “Infrared Photoshop Tutorials & Videos” page that “This video explains that Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom cannot properly interpret IR RAW files”. This is wrong, as is apparent from the titles of the next videos there: “Editing Infrared Photos with a DNG Profile Editor, Lightroom, and Photoshop” and “Setting White Balance on Infrared Images with Lightroom (DNG Profile Editor)”.

With a DNG import profile, you have all the scope you need for variation in colour with infrared images.

Life pixel also don’t advise using NX2, they say it may be appropriate with some Nikon cameras where there may be problems in setting the white balance. Since it’s coupled with the wrong advice mentioned above which may be from an old outdated video they’ve never got round to removing, I’d take it with a grain of salt anyway. At the very least, it only applies if you find you have trouble setting the white balance on your camera.

Nonsense. I am quite capable of following instructions, which I did, according to Bob’s LR settings. Didn’t work. Went to NX D and set white balance – IT WORKED. End of story. Thank you ballboys and linesmen. But if you want me to say good things about LR I can, I use it for everything else. Just not for IR. And I’m a little curious about why you’re so fixated on proving something to be one way or the other. Don’t we each have different methodologies etc? Get over it.

Really? Are you saying you downloaded the DNG Profile Editor, used that and Lightroom to create a DNG Profile, applied that profile to your images in Lightroom as a Development Module camera calibration profile, and still you didn’t get a marked increase in the available colour temperature range? If you correctly followed those processes I find that quite extraordinary.

You do appear to have effectively misquoted Life Pixel and I inferred that you had not carefully researched and fully considered the implications of all their videos and instructions. If this is not the case I apologise, though in which case I am also mystified.

I didn’t make any comments about the merits of alternatives to Lightroom. Some may work better than Lightroom. For example, I have a friend who says that Capture One works very well. Rather, I was attesting that in my experience as well as Bob’s, and for that matter in the experience of others I know, Lightroom works perfectly well for infrared processing.

One thing I think you should get over is telling other people to get over it.

Stephen, I have no vested interest in promoting Lightroom or Photoshop. It is probably not fair to say, however, that Lightroom is not capable of processing your IR photo. Between my own photos from 3 different IR cameras using filters from 4 different manufacturers, and RAW photos sent to me by a variety of people over the years, I have yet to find a situation where I couldn’t produce similar results to the photos in my article. It does require you to use the Channel Mixer from Photoshop, however. I downloaded and used NX-D after reading your post. I used the exact operations I used on the golf course image in my article. The NX-D processed image doesn’t look much different, although the vegetation had a stronger yellow tint to it. I took a white balance setting off the grass. Had I tweaked the Channel Mixer settings, I probably could have gotten the image to look exactly like the one I posted. Bob

15.1.1.1.1.1.1.3) Betty

July 28, 2015 at 2:14 pm

Well said Murray. Too often boasts ’30 years experience’ translates into 30 years repeating the same mistakes.

Well, I haven’t been a photographer for thirty years so maybe that’s it. Plus I don’t have a beard. But anyway, as they say, even if you win an argument on the internet, you’re still a retard. I’m not really interested in unpacking this thing any further as I’ve said all I really care to. Yay.

And to Betty, thanks for the nice words re my website. I shall endeavor to improve. It’s a nice sunny day here so I’m going out with my Hoya R72 attached to my lens.

hi Bob, Thank you very much for this very informative article. I will definitely try this. I have got a question though. I have seen some very colorful images depicting even green grass vividly. Can you please explain this? I will be very much obliged…thanks! here is an examplewww.manishmamtani.com/Categ…/i-Q9gPs2r

Jitendra, You are quite welcome. Those colors were produced from an IR filter of ~ 590nm-665nm (most likely 590nm). This filter range allows much more visible light to strike the sensor, and produces much more vivid colors than the standard 720nm filters most use. Bob

Update – Since posting my thoughts on LR versus NX-D workflow for IR photogs, I’ve been busy looking at this issue. NX-D worked perfectly re WB whereas LR sucked the big one. No matter what I tried. So, the update. I’ve sorted out my LR problems for IR and can now happily tweak the NEF files both in LR and P’shop. Just thought you’d like to know.

Glad to hear that you figured it out, since in 8 years of doing this, I have always found a way to get good looking results, even if the initial photo in LR looked a bit pink (per the article above and my other two IR articles on Photography Life). The Adobe Custom Profile for my D7100 720 nm filter in Lightroom produces a file that looks like what NX-D produces.

Here’s an example from a photo I took yesterday. I used the Adobe Custom Profile tool for this one. The Temp was 5000 and the Tint was 23 in Lightroom. I could have gotten the same result even if I started out with a Temp of 2000 and Tint of 118. 500px.com/photo…-vishneski

There are usually many ways to get the same result as long as you understand how the White Balance, Channel Mixer, Curves, and Hue/Saturation adjustment layers relate and affect one another, and take a bit of time to create some presets for each.

Whenever I tinker with these settings, I always save the presets and label them for the IR filter. This enables me to then call the in a Photoshop Action and reduce my processing time. Thus my processing time includes a few mouse clicks and perhaps a few tweaks to fine tune any given photo.

That’s a nice shot there at 500px. Re your workflow, that’s the smart way of doing it. Once I’ve sorted out a few presets I want to keep, it’s what I will be doing as well. I’ve got a few I use already for print work.

In case you’re interested here’s a link to one I did today. It’s at the redoubtable Flickr site which I use for stuff I’m not quite certain about so I can stare at it while I’m on the web and make my mind up about. Anyway, here’s the link –

Stephen, My presets will usually “get me in the ballpark” so to say. I may make some minor adjustments since DSLR sensors are really not designed specifically for IR, and the settings that work well for one shot may not give the same results with another shot. After some time at this, you will likely get better at knowing exactly what tweaks you need to make. That is one moody shot! Thanks for sharing. Bob

Well I finally had a chance to try out your processing Bob and I have to say I really like it. I’m creating actions like crazy. Here is a link to the image I finished with them 500px.com/photo…id=1396367

I’ve also shot some surfers with my IR camera and that’s in that set as well.

Bob, thanks for posting this. Your original post about your D7100 is what inspired me to send my D7000 to Kolari Vision, and I’ve since also converted a D800, both converted to 720nm.

I have to say that I’m very intrigued by your workflow. The back end of it (Silver Efex Pro, etc.) is very similar to mine, but the front portion runs very different, and actually quite counter to what I’ve been taught (not that there are any “rules”), particularly with regard to White Balance. Everything I’ve read regarding IR and WB tells me to balance to green grass for 720nm and not a grey card, so I’d be interested to learn why you choose to do it this way – or am I misreading you?

With both my Nikons I am able to achieve a custom IR white balance in camera, but as you point out Lightroom does not allow for me to replicate the look of the preview JPEG I see on my LCD. I’ve created a custom profile to do this and am able to match that look in LR using it, but it is a far different look than what you start your workflow with. Something close to this image where I’ve done no channel swapping in post (www.flickr.com/photo…395141475/).

With that said, I went back to some images I shot over the weekend and decided to reprocess using your method. I normally apply my custom camera profile on import, so I changed it to Camera Portrait as you do and then reset the WB to “As Shot”, which pinned my Blue/Yellow WB settings to 2000 as usual. I’m not sure where your Red/Green slider ends up balancing to a grey card, but let’s just say I was “close enough” to your cocoa color to press on. In Photoshop I found that I wasn’t thrilled with the typical Channel Swap settings, but your alternate set produces a very pleasing result. The radical tweaking that what you’re doing in the Green and Blue channels compensates for the custom white balancing I do in Lightroom, as once applied the cocoa image now looked very much like what I get with a normal channel swap on a white balanced image, though I am often left with more reds to deal with (cotton candy IR – Kolari has an action for removing these that I use when I want them gone). With a Hue adjustment I can make them nearly identical. More than one way to skin a cat, right?

On a lark I then went back and took an image white balanced the way I normally do in Lightroom and then applied your alternate channel swap and was presented with colors not unlike what I see with 590nm and 665nm filters. Very similar to your “Mourning in Infrared” photo on 500px. It was a pleasant surprise, and it’s another tool in the box for me – thanks!!

Speaking of that shot, I was a little stunned when I saw it as there is a nearly identical monument on the opposite side of Pennsylvania at Easton Cemetery, placed under a similar tree but with no marker to the right (www.flickr.com/photo…395141475/). It’s a great place to shoot if you ever find yourself out this way.

Thanks again for the walkthru. One comment, you mention the IR ratings in your lens database and as I looked at them I found them rather wanting. I’ve done some extensive testing with some of the ones labeled simply “Good” and found them almost unusable due to the hot spots. I understand that these can be situational and can vary from camera to camera, but it would be extremely beneficial if those ratings could be a little more detailed in terms of what “good” means and where it applies. For example, with the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 (rated “good”) I found that hot spots appear immediately and become problematic after f5.6 and impossible after f8 across all focal lengths. The same holds true for the Nikon 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G IF-ED, but the 24-120mm f4G IF-ED is amazingly good throughout, and yet they’re all rated the same. Like you I don’t often shoot IR beyond f8, but it would be good if you and Nasim could eventually work information into the IR Rating that speaks to usable aperture ranges for IR on the lenses (yeah, I know … more work :) ).

That’s a very different workflow to mine. I haven’t so far worried about in-camera white balance though I will reconsider that and I don’t usually aim for white foliage.

One comment, though. It may not be easy to have an accurate database of hot spots. I suspect hot spots can have different forms according to lens and according to light conditions as well as aperture. Some I have found, mainly have a colour rather than an exposure effect. Those can sometimes be corrected or may disappear in mono whereas others appear to me altogether to hard or much work to correct.

Agreed. Fully documenting hot spots for a lens is near impossible, but I do believe there are methods by which you can identify the propensity of a lens to exhibit them under, say, overhead sunlight, on both full and cropped sensors. And yes, correcting both spotting in the center and edge darkening (the lesser spoken about issue with some lenses) can range from simple to impossible depending on the size and intensity of the spot and image content. I do believe that it’s possible to determine the overall propensity for a lens to hot spot and I use two tests to do this. One of these days I’ll put a blog post together with details.

I do have a Lightroom preset that will insert a pair of Radial filters that go a long way towards an “automatic” correction for these problems. One is a large oval that affects the area outside, brightening corners, while the other is a perfect circle in the center of the image that effectively reduces and even eliminates any spot, adjusting WB appropriately in each adjusted section for an even look throughout. Once added they can be tweaked from default values to improve the correction. All this happens before I go to Photoshop.

I’ve never noticed vignetting though my IR camera is a Fuji rather than a Nikon which may or may not make a difference. I sometimes use the radial filter in an ad hoc manner for correction. I also sometimes use a colour layer in Photoshop and paint in colours I have sampled from outside the affected area. That has to be the last step though because if i subsequently do any colour tweaks, the correction may fall apart.

I noticed it far less with my D7000 cropped sensor than I do with the full frame D800. The 24-120mm f4 is my walkaround lens on that camera and it’s far more noticeable at 24mm than it is beyond 35mm, and this is the case with most zooms I’ve played with. At 24mm it’s about 1/2 stop and by 50mm I don’t even think about it.

Jake, As I noted in some of my articles, the settings I used to process IR shots taken with my Nikon D40X and 720nm filter vary quite a bit from those I used with my D7100 and Kolari Vision 720nm filter. Since I wrote this article, I started using Adobe’s Custom Profile for my D7100. It gives me a Temp of 50,000 and a Tint of -23. My Lightroom image now looks almost exactly like the image on my D7100’s LCD (which as a WB setting I got by pointing my camera at a Halogen bulb, believe it or not!). Indeed, there are many ways to get to a “good” result with IR. There are no “rights & wrongs” per se. Of course, this is what makes it a bit frustrating as well, since I believe many people get a bit exasperated with all the options and understanding how changing one impacts another. That is why I wrote the article – to help give people a starting point to get decent results. I like your cemetery photos. Beautiful angels! I will try to swing by that way next time I am in northeastern PA. Thanks for your feedback. Bob

Jake, I will speak to Nasim regarding the IR ratings. I have been meaning to cross reference a variety of sources that I have accumulated over time. I suspect I can put together a very comprehensive list. I tend to think that either a lens is good for IR or it is not. I don’t want to have to remember which apertures work and do not work for IR. Bob

Thanks, JW. Portraits are a bit more challenging in IR. Eyes look a bit ghoulish. You also have to be careful of veins, since, although they may be nearly invisible in visible light, they will appear extremely prominent in IR. As such, portraits are not always the best application for IR. Bob

I am in a photojournalism class and have been assigned to use an infrared camera for a project. However, I have been having a lot of issues with the camera lately and it has been causing me to not be able to take the pictures that I need to. I think that the person who used the camera before me changed a lot of the settings around and I don’t know how to fix it. Is there a way for me set the camera back at default settings so that all of the changes factors don’t impact the pictures that I am taking?

You don’t say what kind of camera it is (dslr/ mirrorless), what kind of IR conversion it has, what kind of white balance you are using and what kind of problems you are experiencing. For example, you may be expecting good results out of the camera. Some of the B&W only conversions might give you that but otherwise you can have terrible-looking images out of the camera that can give you great results with appropriate processing.

Great article and beautiful work. I am having great difficulty obtaining a custom WB with my 590 nm converted Nikon D7100. The camera keeps rejecting the data pegged to do the WB. I’ve tried WB on various things like grass and trees to no avail. Any insight or solution you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Bill, Thanks you. Similar to Barney, I had to resort to something other than simply using a patch of grass to set the custom WB. I had to point my D7100 at a brightly lit halogen light Pointing it at the grass, as done with other cameras, simply gave me an error message. Bob

In short military words. Best IR photo editing article on the net. Point 3 with sample image and RGB channels values are the most crucial. So far I’m using R72 Hoya on D500 so my exp times are +15s long but wondering if I’d buy a spare older Nikon just to modify it for IR. I’ve seen that portraits are looking angelic and found nice trick for ghoulish eyes removing :)

This is the best tutorial I have read so far on Infrared photography, just great. Could you tell me your image “Silver EFEX IR Structure” is this a preset as I cannot find it in Silver EFEX Pro 2, or is there a way to download it from somewhere.

Thanks, Mike. The preset I referred to is one I created after tinkering around with the structure sliders and B&W color adjustments. Of course, these are all a matter of taste, so your mileage may vary. To top it off, although I may start out with a preset, I often modify the settings given the specific photo involved, the quality of IR light, etc. I have noticed that using the Clarity slider in Lightroom before importing the photo into Photoshop results in less noise/artifacts than what Nik Silver EFEX produces. The best advice I can give you is to experiment and tinker with a few photos and settings that you like. Save them as your presets and this will enable you to “get close” to your final processed photo fairly quickly. Bob

Bob, I must tell you this article of yours is a great article for those who are starting out in IR photography.

I am just starting out in IR photography. I just bought a full spectrum infrared converted Panasonic DMC-SZ7 from Kolari vision. This camera does not shoot RAW. I wonder if I should use visible light blocking filter to get true Infrared image. I will try to do the similar post processing of my images from this camera to get similar results like yours here?

Dave, Thanks for the feedback. There’s no reason why you can’t duplicate the results in this article and my other infrared articles. The challenge for many is setting a consistent white balance and creating a reliable processing routine. Bob

Thank you Bob for a prompt response. I tried. My skies turn out pinkish red. I guess the original photograph should have bluer sky. I will try again with sky with more blue in it. Do you think a visible light blocking filter may make some difference?

Dave, Yes. The full spectrum conversion should enable you to take photos with various light frequencies, but you need to block the other types of light which you do not want to capture. Did you download and install Adobe’s Custom DNG Profile tool for Lightroom in section 2? Have you read and followed Kolari Vision’s instructions? Bob

Thank you, Bob, I followed all but custom white balance step. So I did that and I got the effects like yours. I still have to get Adobe Custom DNG profile tool for Lightroom. Where do I get it? Is it from Adobe website? Thank you so much.

Hi again Bob I have been following this article and its comments from the beginning and have learned much. I have just converted another camera to IR (my third, I’m hopelessly hooked ) this one is to 850nm as I found I am converting everything to B&W and I like the high contrast I have seen from others with the deep b&w conversions. I have a few questions- first is do you use a grey card or green grass for your wb setting? I used the grass for my 590nm conversion but a grey card for the 720nm. The second is would you use a custom profile in LR for it even though you are converting to monochrome? I made a DNG custom profile for it but the color is still strange, well more strange than the other two cameras profiles are). Thanks in advance for your input. Each conversion is so different

Excellent questions as I work in this range as well and look forward to hearing Bob’s response. My personal experience is with a D800/830nm conversion (also have D200/590nm conversion). For the images recorded through the D800/830nm, my post-processing workup is simplified because there is no channel switching only a boost in contrast, black/white point adjustment, Silver Efex Pro and some ProContrast work in Nik’s Color Efex pro. Sometimes I do fine tuning of the image in PS of course. This may not be ideal. I’m open to change and will be interested in Bob’s thoughts on post-processing images captured in this range. I have used green grass for setting the WB.

Each camera has different capabilities for setting a white balance with IR filters. My new D7200 works fine. The D90 and D7100? Not so much. My Nikon D90 850nm was converted by Kolari Vision. I set the white balance by pointing it at a bright light, as I had to do with my D7100, since I had difficulty setting a white balance from grass or other vegetation. This produces a slightly B&W image with a slight cyan tone. I convert the image to B&W, as Hali does. In general, setting a white balance with the higher range IR filters is not as important as it is with the 590nm-720nm, since there is little if any visible light to influence the development of false colors. If you use your camera’s native WB interpretation or you create a custom WB, I’m not sure it will influence the results very much. I thought I would like the 850nm filter more than I do. While it produces nice images, it doesn’t have the range/flexibility the 720nm (or lower) filter has. Bob Hope this helps. Bob

I had not thought about setting the white balance by pointing it at a bright light. My biggest problem has been the proper setting of that, something I’ve had no problem with in my other cameras, but now that I look into it in LR it doesn’t seem to make that much of a difference.

I’m really enjoying the 850 at this time, but that could be because it’s new, :).

Hali, You’re quite welcome. I found the light trick by accident, when, no matter what I did, my D7100 could not use a patch of grass to set a good white balance. A halogen light worked wonderfully. I like the 850nm, but there are times I would like some color: photographylife.com/infra…0nm-filter Bob

Sometimes it is the fortuitous mistakes that give the best results, the trick for me is remembering what it took to get there and being able to duplicate it. You gave me a quick shortcut for that!! I did like your pushing color in 720 article. I will use some of those tips the next time I pull out my 720nm 7D (although I use that mostly for shooting surfers, it’s so cool to see them surfing in infrared).

Thanks again, I really appreciate the information. There is a lot of mediocre information out there on IR, you’ve got a great resource in this article and your other articles.

You’re welcome. You cannot truly mimic IR with effects with such software. Infrared light is beyond the range of visible light, although there is some overlap and some IR filters do allow various percentages of visible and IR light (~590nm – 900nm). As such, it captures scenes in a way beyond the capability of visible light. IR reacts differently not just to colors, but to materials. Two pieces of clothing can be black to your eye, but with infrared light, one might look black and the other white.

I’ve seen a number of such products promising to mirror the look of IR over the years. None of them work. They merely allow you to change some colors of visible light to mirror the false colored photos of IR, but they do not look the same as an image captured in IR. If you look at 130 on down, they are merely turning the green foliage into B&W and lightening it a bit. Why? Because foliage looks different when captured with in infrared light, and not one of these programs can make objects captured in visible light mirror their IR counterparts.

I shoot quite a bit of IR, and I can vouch for the fact that none of the scenes depicted look like what an IR camera would produce in a similar situation. I’d have to take a good look at close ups of their EIR film template to know if it is even close. I suspect the images are chock full of noise. Both of their EIR photos look pretty cheesy. Take a good look at the tips of the trees of the EIR images.

My advice? Shoot real IR, learn how to use Lightroom and Photoshop, develop some presets as I describe in the article referenced in the preceding paragraph, and save the $16. ;)

Danya, Sorry, but you cannot achieve the same look of infrared images by using photos taken with a regular camera – despite what some software companies promise. IR is a different form of light that the visible spectrum. You need to use an IR filter that only allows infrared light to reach the sensor or a modified DSLR/digital camera that blocks visible light and only allows infrared light to reach the sensor. Best Regards, Bob

Hi Many thanks for this information. I have a Nikon D5000 converted for IR but haven’t used it for a while as I was a little disappointed with the lack of clarity I was getting. I now have a better lens and I am enthused to get back and try again. Although I used to use Nik Efex, I no longer have this software and I am wondering if you or anyone else has found other plugins or applications that will work as well. NB I use an Apple computer. Regards Trish

Trish, One of the reasons I have not gone with lower-end DSLRs is because they don’t allow for AF fine tuning. Given that IR light is a different frequency than visible light, the AF capabilities of the D7100, D7200, D500, etc. can make a real difference in the sharpness of your pics. If you have a work horse lens you wish to use, such as the 16-85mm, you should consider sending it to your conversion house to have the camera tuned for it. Best Regards, Bob

If by Privacy, you mean Code of Conduct, you might perhaps learn to distinguish between the two. Privacy rules are governed by law over which a website owner has no control. Code of Conduct is at the discretion of the website owner. A website comments section or forum is in effect a club. Clubs have rules. If you don’t like the rules, don’t enter the club.

The PL code of conduct is IMHO eminently sensible allowing wide-ranging discussion on photography related topics without being abusive, illegal, commercial or ideological. You either don’t get out much, or you relish the idea of being gratuitously offensive, or you want to use the site to ventilate one personal agenda or another. Either way, it’s better for all that you stay away. No great loss.

Hello Bob et al. After a rather lengthy period of planning and re-reading your essay I finaly took the plunge and send my camera to Kolarivision. I live in Europe and was glad for their generous offer regarding postage. They were very quick (three weeks including post to and fro Far West/Europe), and answered all my questions very patiently. Your workflow is a very good starting point for me, many thanks. It was probably the last droplet with my decision. After all I have “lost” my perfectly good and precious D800e and additionally had to pay for a dedicated camera, not knowing, if it would be something I really like. But it seems to be it – and I got a good reason to buy Z7 ;-) (She is my precious now too) Thanks again and keep up your work! Thanks to others too, e.g. Murray Foote and Jake (do not undestand all of it yet, but testing), and above all Betty for her entertaining, charming and knowledgable comments!

Robert, Glad you took the plunge, but very sorry to hear you lost your D800e. I’m sure the Z7 will be a great IR camera. Which filter did you choose? As I pointed out in other articles, the mirrorless cameras are ideal for IR photography. I held off getting a Sony A7 variation, however, as I didn’t want to have a foot in both camps (Nikon and Sony). I’ll likely switch to mirrorless for IR at some point, but for now, I have no complaints with my D750. Please keep us updated with the results of your Z7. Bob

Bob, Thank you for sharing so much info. Have just started with a 590nm conversion through LifePixel and am searching for a satisfactory work flow. However, I am using Affinity Photo which seems to have the tools that I need. Have you any info about Affinity and its practicality for IR work? Thanks, Richard

Bob, Thanks for the processing information. I am starting out on the IR journey and have been using Affinity Photo. It seems to have what is needed but do you have any knowledge of its performance with IR images? Thanks, Richard

Richard, I haven’t used Affinity Pro nor heard much about it. It looks like some very powerful software for $39.99 (on sale). In reviewing its feature list, I noticed quite a few Photoshop-like features, although I can’t comment on how well it may or may not handle IR post processing. I did see a link indicating it has such ability, however. Bob

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.

Footer

Site Menu

Privacy & Cookies: Our partners will collect data and use cookies for ad personalization and measurement. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. To find out more, including how to control cookies, please see our Privacy Policy